Standing Committee G

[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

New clause 5 - Removal of unauthorised encampments and waste

'.—The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows: 
 In Section 61 (Power to remove trespassers on land) 
 (a) For subsection (1) there is substituted— 
 ''(1) If the senior police office present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period and that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave he may direct those persons or any of them to leave the land and to remove any vehicles, other property or waste they have with them on the land or which appears to the officer to be connected to their presence on the land.''. 
 (b) Subsection (2) is omitted. 
 (c) In Subsection (4) there is inserted after paragraph (b)— 
 ''(c) Fails to remove any vehicles, other property or waste which he has with him on the land or which appears to be connected to his presence on the land.''. 
 (d) In Subsection (6) paragraph (b) is omitted.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day]: That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

James Cran: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 New clause 11—Deliberate despoiling and/or mis-use of land— 
'(1) The Chief Executive Officer of the relevant local authority may make an eviction order in relation to premises to which this section applies if he reasonably believes that— 
 (a) a public nuisance is being caused by deliberate despoiling or mis-use of land by the owners or occupiers of that land; 
 (b) the eviction of any persons whether owners or occupiers or trespassers or visitors is necessary to prevent that nuisance and/or to correct the despoiling or mis-use of the land. 
 (2) A person commits an offence if he permits or authorises the continuing mis-use or despoiling of land or creation of a public nuisance on it or aids or abets others to do so. 
 (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to— 
 (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, 
 (b) a fine not exceeding £20,000, 
 (c) both.'.

John Randall: It is a pleasure to be back on my feet after the luncheon interval, which gave me a good opportunity to collect my thoughts, although they may not necessarily be any more coherent. As we are within striking distance of the winning post I do not want to delay the Committee long.
 Unauthorised incursions by travellers have been of great concern to many of my constituents. As I was saying just before lunch, one of the most alarming developments in the past few years has been the increased use of car parks, private and public, by travellers. When they use private company car parks, they cause not only untold unpleasantness, but severe commercial restriction. Despite legislation being passed, either there is confusion or different authorities claim that the problem is not a matter for them. Anything that would clarify the position would be welcome. 
 The frustration caused by the incursions is understandable. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) talked about the noise at night from generators parked near to people's houses. During the summer months when windows are open, both the smell and the noise come through. I am worried that some of the people affected will take the law into their own hands. I am especially worried about bank holiday weekends when local authority staff are stretched. None of us would condone such action, but the public need to know that there are strong measures that can be used. 
 The number of people who agree with the statements that were made this morning show that this is not a question of bigots who do not want to co-exist peacefully with others. I have an authorised travellers site in my constituency and I have been working with the community there. I have learned a lot about their way of life, and I have tried to improve conditions and the education of their children. The travellers themselves say that one of the biggest causes of antipathy towards them is the bad press that results from unauthorised incursions. The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that some of the travellers who make unauthorised incursions do not want to go to the official sites even if there is space. 
 Thankfully, serious problems have not occurred in Hillingdon in recent months. Having said that, I am sure that that caravans are now massing at the border and will arrive on a bit of land this coming bank holiday. The problem has not been so severe recently because of the strong action taken by the local authority and the Metropolitan police, but it has been serious in the past in my area and it remains so elsewhere. The Government should consider how they can help.

Liz Blackman: I, too, can relate several awful incidents when groups of travellers have visited my constituency and left the sort of legacy of despoilment that other members of the Committee have described. Crime has increased and there have been acts of intimidation. Inevitably, the price of that conduct has been paid by the local authority and therefore by the local taxpayer.
 The new clauses are born of the frustration felt by all Members of Parliament and our communities. We do not necessarily want more to be done; instead, we want what is being done to be done more quickly, efficiently and effectively. I share that frustration. Local authorities have been hamstrung to some degree by their duty under the welfare principle. However, on 15 January 2002 in a Westminster Hall debate, my 
 hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), then a Home Office Minister, stressed that travellers should—[Interruption.]

James Cran: Order. Will whoever has the bleeper please switch it off?

Liz Blackman: Thank you, Mr. Cran.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey argued that travellers should be accorded the same human rights as others, but that human rights considerations did not prevent the use of the law to prevent illegal trespass leading to antisocial or criminal behaviour. She said to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay): 
''The right hon. Gentleman might be interested in a recent case in the High Court in which section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—the part that encompasses police powers—was challenged and found not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I hope that that is another reassurance that he will take away with him. Each operation by the police is subject to challenge on the same grounds, so the police must bear the Human Rights Act in mind. However, within the context of what I have just said—that all people's rights are equal in our society—if people behave in an antisocial or criminal way, or in some of the ways that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the full force of the law can and should be brought to bear.''—[Official Report, 15 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 67WH.]
 That is quite clear. The point at issue is therefore enforcement, which is the subject of the new clauses and of our concerns. 
 The Government have none the less recognised that police powers need to be beefed up so that they can challenge unauthorised campers. Consultation is under way on guidance on how to do precisely that. Will the Minister let the Committee know how that consultation is proceeding? The intention behind the guidance is clearly to enable the police, the local authority and all parties concerned about such dire behaviour to deal with it more effectively. I hope that he will accept the intention behind the new clauses, which is to achieve what we all want.

Vernon Coaker: Most of us agree with the aims of the new clauses, which are designed to undo the frustration that we all feel when it appears that existing powers cannot be used for all sorts of bemusing reasons. If the Minister is going to ask for the new clause to be withdrawn, we need to think about how we can make existing legislation effective and use the Bill to improve matters.
 As members of the Committee know, it has been a recurring theme of mine that we should use the Bill to draw a line in the sand and say that the culture has to change. Our debate on the new clause has touched on the clash between individual rights and the general good of the community. Nothing is more important than individual rights, and most of us accept that each individual has certain inalienable rights, but they must be seen alongside the good of the community. The ''rights'' of certain individuals to create mayhem are taking precedence over ordinary people's ability to carry on with their lives, as evidenced by the activities of certain traveller groups. 
 The balance of rights is out of kilter, and I believe that the aim of the new clause is to rebalance them, not to trample over the rights of individuals who may have lifestyles that we do not consider to be normal, or of people who are eccentric and who drive around in a caravan or on a horse and cart and like living under the stars. People have a right to live like that if they want to, provided that doing so is not to the disadvantage of others. That goes to the heart of the Bill and almost every clause of it. We are having a very interesting philosophical debate about individual rights, collective rights and the general good. It is vital to balance individual rights with the general good and the protection of the individual whose rights are being infringed by people who will not conform. If we do not do that, the Bill will fail.

Laura Moffatt: The new clauses address two aspects of illegal encampment. Even short-term illegal encampments by passing groups of travellers would be better tolerated by communities if the site was left in decent order. The reason why people have become more intolerant is that the sites are left in the most appalling mess. That is what communities find so difficult to put up with. Does he agree that people have been pushed to this point because of the filthy state in which the sites have been left?

Vernon Coaker: I agree. Many members of the Committee have made that important point.
 I say to the Minister that we must find some way to monitor the impact of the new clauses. Whatever new powers we insert into the Bill, we must find some way to let local authorities and local police know what powers they have. There is tremendous ignorance about what powers are available—that is not a criticism, but a statement of fact. Hon. Members have asked what powers are available, and I am sure that people are often unclear about what powers they have to tackle illegal encampments and other problems. That is a fundamental flaw in our procedure. When we in Parliament pass laws, we must ensure that people understand what powers are available to them to tackle problems in our communities.

Annette Brooke: I agree with many of the comments that hon. Members have made. I recognise all the issues, as hon. Members might imagine given the part of the country that I come from and its popularity in summer. Legislation that was introduced for the best possible reasons—looking after the welfare of children—has caused delay, as we know. However, what it says is right, which creates a big dilemma.
 I recognise that there are problems with private land. Again, I have been a sponsor of a Bill—the Traveller Law Reform Bill—promoted by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), which he has presented twice. I am supportive of the approach taken in that Bill. My main concern is that in this Committee, we are trying to deal with the issue out of context. It might appear that I am trying to slow things down, but I am not sure that so many different 
 things should be included in one Bill, because some of the issues need broader examination. 
 I acknowledge the public outrage at the cost that must be met by the council tax payer, and I hope that the Government also acknowledge that concern. However, I am not convinced that the Bill is the best place to tackle the issue. We are rather constrained, and wider issues need to be considered simultaneously.

Tony McNulty: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cran. I am deeply disappointed that this is the last sitting of the Committee. May I break with precedent by informing the Committee what the beeping that we just heard was all about? It was a kind message from the Government Whips Office saying that those who are not serving on a Standing Committee may go home. Happily, by way of balance, the second message—for which, in the interests of our deliberations, there was no beep—said that there were long delays at Heathrow and suggested that hon. Members delayed their departure by an hour or so. Our colleagues are therefore here in spirit if not physically, as they go on their way—

James Cran: Order. I should like to register the fact that I, too, would like to get home sometime today.

Tony McNulty: I assure hon. Members that, as an ex-Whip, that is the only revelation that I shall make about the listings on parliamentary Labour party pagers.
 The discussions on the amendments have been useful. I fully understand hon. Members' frustration, which is rooted largely in the perceived powerlessness and inadequacy of the existing laws. However, I take issue with that perception to some extent, and I shall return to the point later in my speech. 
 I do not want to labour the point, but I do not think that it is useful to talk about travellers descending like plagues of locusts or to put the words ''traveller'' and ''criminal'' into some degree of synonymity, if that is the correct term. The issue is important and it impinges to some extent on all our communities and constituencies, so it should be debated, but not in those terms. In my ministerial capacity and otherwise I have met and had dealings with Baroness Young. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has said, she does an excellent job at the Environment Agency. The comments were unfortunate. 
 New clause 5 would introduce new powers. In its intent, it is not a million miles from what we are seeking to do through the guidance mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I shall read the introductory part of that guidance. It starts from three basic guiding principles that directly or indirectly underpin much of what hon. Members have said. The first of those states: 
''Unauthorised camping is unlawful; there is no 'right' for Gypsies and other Travellers (or anyone else) to stop where they want, for as long as they want, or to behave without regard to others.''
 We must be practical about such issues rather than just make ourselves feel good by passing legislation. The second principle states that 
''in the short term—until more authorised sites have been provided—unauthorised camping will still take place and policies should seek to manage encampments to minimise disruption for all concerned.''
 That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) suggested. I could dwell on other elements of our policy in that area, but I will not. The third principle states: 
''Standards of behaviour expected of Gypsies and other Travellers at encampments should be those expected of the settled community, and enforcement should be based on uniform expectations''
 of behaviour, no more, no less, 
''which should be effectively communicated''—
 the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)— 
''to Gypsies and other Travellers.''
 Those three principles underpin our guidance, which is designed, to strengthen eviction powers in appropriate circumstances, to fill a gap in existing law, to make provision for further temporary and transitory encampments, and to tackle under-provision. It represents a rounded way of dealing with all aspects of a problem that is very real, as all hon. Members have said and I freely admit. 
 Some of the difficulties are rooted in the fact that sometimes action is not taken, but that is not always the case—many local authorities and police forces do take action in the right fashion. Some speakers have mentioned relevant provisions: section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 61(4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can and should be used far more readily than they are. A concoction or portfolio of existing legislative measures can and should be used. 
 There is a gap that must be filled. Underpinning the Bill is the recognition that action, consequences and provision to prevent the action from being needed are important. That is why we produced the guidance. Happily, I can inform the Committee that consultation on the guidance closes tomorrow. We shall spend most of the next two or three months analysing the exercise and producing final guidance and a set of recommendations. The work is well along the way, and much of what is in new clause 5 is embraced by it. 
 I am keenly aware that there may be elements of the new clause that do not come out as readily as they should in the guidance, but I ask the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) to withdraw the motion in the context of the Government considering it in relation to the guidance we are working on. It may be of some use for us to return to it, and I shall be more than happy to do so. 
 The new clause does not deal with the more vexed issue of how to deal with encampments that are illegal, or that certainly do not have planning permission, in the context of ownership. I know that that is an issue, not least from my diary and meetings, lovely though they are, with assorted hon. Members from all parties 
 about vexed issues of ownership and whether ownership is rooted in a site or field that is broken down into smaller divisions of ownership, not simply for the gypsy and travelling community, but for others who seek to transgress or get round various aspects of the law. New clause 11 also introduces issues relating to ownership of land. We shall consider that matter in far more detail. If that new clause is not pressed, I undertake to consider it further and see whether we can do something with the sentiments behind it in the context of the Bill or, if appropriate, elsewhere. 
 Even though the consultation finishes tomorrow, if it is appropriate and hon. Members would like me to, I am more than happy to send them a copy of the consultation on guidance document for their pleasure over the Whitsun holiday.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said about new clause 11; that is enormously helpful. One way of dealing with the matter might be to supply those who are responsible for the consultation with a copy of the Hansard of today's debate. If the Minister says that the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in this important debate will be taken into account as part of the consultation, that would be helpful.

Tony McNulty: I can certainly do that. If these were more normal circumstances and I could disregard the vagaries of the way in which the House works, I could say, ''Don't look now, but if I turn round and point at someone, that is the very person who will do it.'' However, as those people do not exist in the Room, I will not do that. In any case, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that his point will be taken on board.
 I am more than happy to give the guidance, just by way of information, to members of the Committee if that is helpful and to put it in the context of what we are trying to do with the gypsy site refurbishment grant, research, provision of sites and all the other elements of policy. I am more than happy to give everyone a phone book-sized document that sums up where we are on gypsy and traveller provision and the carrot and stick approach, in which we say that rights and responsibilities come with recognising any community's lifestyle. There are norms and standards of behaviour that may be expected from all communities—settled, gypsy and traveller alike. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

James Paice: I am sorry that the Minister was not present for the whole of my introductory speech moving the new clause. Had he been, he might have understood even more clearly the strength of feeling and the justification for it.
 I welcome the Minister's closing remarks. I am sure that the whole Committee will be interested to see the consultation document. I strongly commend to him the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He should take the Hansard for today's proceedings as part of the response to the consultation. There has been great 
 unanimity on the issues across the Committee. I said from the outset that I did not pretend that the new clause was absolutely right, nor did I expect it to cover every issue. That is why my hon. Friend tabled new clause 11 to cover ownership, which is also a factor in my constituency and in many others. 
 In my constituency I have always strenuously made the point that I do not criticise those who wish to have an itinerant lifestyle. That is their choice—I am a libertarian and I consider it to be a free world—but obligations go with that choice. Those obligations are the same as for those who live a conventional lifestyle. All must obey the law and not interfere beyond reason with how others live their lives. We have heard today how a significant proportion of travellers, although certainly not all, do interfere with those who live more conventional lives. That is what we seek to combat. 
 The Minister said that we should not link travellers and criminality. I was at pains not to make that link 100 per cent., but the Minister does himself a disservice if he does not recognise the widespread view in the community—a view shared by some police officers—that many travellers are involved in criminality. I will not put a percentage on it, but it is certainly higher than the percentage for the rest of the population. Many senior police officers make that point to me. We should not shy away from that out of any form of political correctness. 
 This debate is about a culture of behaviour. If people wish to have a certain lifestyle that is fine, as long as they accept the same norms of behaviour as the rest of us do. As the hon. Member for Gedling rightly said, the Bill is about setting a series of norms—drawing a line in the sand, as he put it—for what is acceptable and what is not. The Bill is therefore a useful vehicle to deal with this problem. 
 The Minister referred to existing legislation by which public bodies, the police and local authorities can deal with unauthorised encampments and the other problems caused by travellers, but in far too many cases that is not happening. I hope that the guidance that the Minister is talking about will be adequate, but I have my reservations. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) mentioned children. We have seen how they have been used by some as a means of preventing actions under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. No one pretends that the needs of children should not be taken into account, but that should not prevent the other powers from being used to protect the rest of society.

Liz Blackman: Is it not therefore important that we take up the Minister's offer to see the guidance at this point? Yes, a certain amount of information will transfer into the process, but there will be other points that hon. Members wish to make.

James Paice: I thought that I had made it clear that I welcome the Minister's offer to show us the guidance. I am still entitled to have my reservations until I have seen it in action and know whether it works.
 The Minister referred to the sufficiency of authorised sites but, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, many travellers will not use them. My constituency has a large number of authorised sites, many of which are half empty. Yet there are unauthorised sites that cause the problems that I described. The Minister and those who, as he said, are not present would be mistaken to believe that simply ensuring that there are enough sites will solve the problem; it will not. There are many who, for all sorts of reasons including family disputes or feuds—they seem to be commonplace among some traveller fraternities—will not use existing sites if someone else is on them. However, that does not excuse unauthorised encampments on public or, as it relates to new clause 5, private land, which cause immense cost and inconvenience to the private landowner—a business or an individual—who has to deal with the problem. That is the reality of the world we live in. 
 Every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate has spoken about the mess that the travellers make and I want to stress that issue. Part of my objective in tabling the new clause was to get rid of that mess, make the travellers liable for it and require them to take it with them when they move. Unless I am mistaken, the Minister did not say anything about it when he talked about the guidance, but I hope he will give the matter due thought in his consideration of it and of the results of the consultation. The message from his hon. Friends is as strong as it is from Conservative Members, that the mess is a major part of the problem. The hon. Member for Crawley thought that unauthorised encampments would be more acceptable if it were not for the waste, and that is probably true. The mess and the smell of the detritus left behind is horrendous. The Minister is mistaken if he does not accept that that is an issue.

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with everything he says, especially his last point. Does he agree that when the Government review the issue—the Minister helpfully said that he was taking all our points into account—they need to understand that if all the laws that could be used against travellers were enforced, and proper financial penalties were levied on them, they might not then be in a financial position to benefit from the black economy? Thus they could not use the tactic they have used in my constituency: using their ill-gotten gains from the black economy to buy sites. Would not it be a way to ensure that the mess was cleared up if they had to pay for it? It would also prevent them from buying sites.

James Paice: To be honest, I am not sure I go all the way with my hon. Friend. I shall not say that they all have ill-gotten gains; it is not for me to know how some of them make their money, but I suspect that some have obtained money that at the very least they probably have not declared to the Inland Revenue. That is putting it as politely as I can. Travelling people should be subject to the same legislation, including tax legislation, as the rest of us. That is the sort of issue that annoys, frustrates and angers our constituents who obey the law and pay their taxes. They find it astonishing that some people apparently do not do so.
 I welcome the Minister's remarks about the guidance, which I hope is as strong in finding a better balance as he implied that it would be. There is widespread frustration, which he has witnessed today, that the current measure, however carefully drafted it is and however proper it appears, is not working. It is not being used in the way that the instigators, from all parties, wanted it to be used and we must take the matter further. 
 I hope that the results of the Minister's consultation will be available before the Bill completes its passage, so that further legislation to toughen it up may be incorporated if necessary. 
 This has been a very useful debate. Without wishing to pre-empt what may happen in later stages, it has probably created more unanimity than any other debate during the Committee's proceedings. As its instigator, I am pleased by that. I hope that the Minister will accept that unanimity and produce something that helps all our constituents who suffer greatly from the problem that we have been discussing. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Graffiti removal notices

'(1) Where there is graffiti to which this section applies in the area of a local authority on a surface to which this Act applies, if that authority considers it to be detrimental to the amenity of the area or offensive, they may— 
 (a) serve a removal notice on the owner of the structure, apparatus or plant which include the surface; or 
 (b) if after reasonable inquiry the identity of the owner cannot be ascertained, affix a removal notice to the surface. 
 (2) A removal notice is a notice requiring the owner to remove or obliterate the graffiti within a period specified in the notice, being not less than 14 days after the service or affixation of the notice. 
 (3) Subject to the right of appeal mentioned in section 2, if the person required by a removal notice to remove or obliterate graffiti fails to do so within the time limited by the notice, the local authority may themselves remove or obliterate the graffiti and they may recover from the said person the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing. 
 (4) In proceedings by the local authority against the person served with the notice for the recovery of any expenses which the authority are entitled to recover from that person, it shall not be open to that person to raise any question which could have been raised on an appeal under section 2. 
 (5) Sections 291 and 293 of the Public Health Act 1936 (c.49) shall have effect as if references therein to that Act included references to this Act. 
 (6) Graffiti to which this section applies includes any writing, letter, picture, device or representation, other than an advertisement within the meaning of the Act of 1990.'.—[Siobhain McDonagh.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 7—Appeals against graffiti removal notices— 
'(1) A person on whom a removal notice has been served under section 1(1)(a) above, or the owner of the structure, apparatus or plant which include a surface to which a removal notice has been 
affixed under section 1(1)(b) above may appeal to a magistrates' court on any of the following grounds— 
 (a) that the graffiti is not detrimental to the amenity of the area and is not offensive; 
 (b) that there has been some informality, defect or error in, or in connection with, the removal notice; 
 (c) in the case of a removal notice under section 1(1)(a) above, that the notice should have been served on another person. 
 (2) If and in so far as an appeal under this section is based on the ground of some informality, defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice, the court shall dismiss the appeal, if it is satisfied that the informality, defect or error was not a material one. 
 (3) Where the grounds upon which an appeal under this Act is brought include a ground specified in subsection (1) (c) above, the appellant shall serve a copy of his notice of appeal on each other person referred to in the notice of appeal.'.
 New clause 8—Removal of graffiti at request of owner— 
'(1) Where there is graffiti to which this section applies in the area of a local authority on a surface to which this Act applies and the owner of the structure, apparatus or plant which include that surface requests that authority to remove or obliterate that graffiti, the authority may do so and they may recover from the said owner the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing. 
 (2) Graffiti to which this section applies includes any writing, letter, picture, device or representation, and any advertisement within the meaning of the Act of 1990, other than an advertisement for the display of which deemed or express consent has been granted under the Act of 1990 or regulations made thereunder.'.
 New clause 9—Interpretation— 
'(1) In this section and sections (Graffiti removal notices) (Appeals against graffiti removal notices) (Removal of graffiti at request of owner)— 
 ''the Act of 1990'' means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8); 
 ''local authority'' means— 
 (a) in relation to England, a district council, a county council that is the council for a county in which there are no district councils, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, 
 (b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council; 
 ''road'' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27). 
 (2) A surface to which this section and sections (Graffiti removal notices) (Appeals against graffiti notices) (Removal of graffiti at request of owner) applies is the surface of any structure, apparatus or plant situated in or on any road, where that surface is readily visible from a place to which the public has access.'.

Siobhain McDonagh: The new clauses will give local authorities the power to remove graffiti from street furniture owned by statutory undertakers such as the public utility companies, British Telecom, Telewest—the cable providers—and the railways. There is some confusion about their wording, but I want to make it absolutely clear that they relate not to individual shopkeepers or shop owners but to statutory undertakers—large multi-million pound companies whose business involves a large amount of street furniture that is subject to graffiti which is often left for weeks, months or even years without being cleaned.
 We all accept that graffiti is a growing problem, whether or not we have it in our constituencies. 
 Certainly, 61 per cent. of the people who live in my suburban borough regard it as a problem. In one ward in my constituency—a very suburban area that one would never regard as inner city or suffering from inner-city type problems—in a survey of 232 households, 204 regarded graffiti as one of the main issues that affect them and their local area. The Greater London Authority conducted a survey in which it found that three quarters of Londoners believed that graffiti had an impact on their quality of life. 
 We also know that there is a correlation between graffiti and feeling safe about living in one's home and about walking in the street at any time of day. We are also gathering evidence that suggests that the more regularly graffiti is cleaned away, the less likely it is to return and the less likely people are to tag street furniture or cover it in graffiti. 
 Sergeant Stanhope, who runs Merton's very successful graffiti and fly tipping scheme, said: 
''The main findings of the FLAG project were that when an area is cleaned 93–95% of that area remains clean. The length of time that the area remains clear has varied from a few days to nearly a year. When graffiti is removed rapidly it decreases the chances of it returning.''

Caroline Flint: I congratulate Merton on the FLAG scheme, which I am pleased to say we have adopted in Doncaster. We know from the results and the reactions that it has been very well received, that it can have an enormous impact on getting jobs done quickly and effectively, and that it can answer the problems that people raise with MPs and councillors.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I am very glad that her local authority has taken up the FLAG initiative, but who funds it? Who removes graffiti from council-owned property and the property of individual home owners? It is individual councils and individual council tax payers, who are being hit twice because they have to look after their own homes as well as having to contribute to the overall programme of graffiti removal.
 In a selection of London boroughs controlled by any one of the three major parties, Wandsworth council spends £625,000 a year removing graffiti, Lambeth spends £600,000, Hammersmith and Fulham spends £250,000 and Camden spends £350,000. However well those local authorities attempt to operate, London is blighted by graffiti. 
 This morning, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), suggested that London spends £24 million of council tax payers' money on removing graffiti. Who is not contributing to finance the removal of that scourge? We all agree that we would prefer that it did not exist or that we could catch the people responsible for it, but we know from our own experiences that people doing graffiti are not caught. They do it at night, and quickly. Even if we quadrupled our police force, there would still be graffiti. 
 Therefore I am tackling the issue of the privatised utilities and statutory undertakers. We all receive leaflets from them about their corporate social 
 responsibility programmes, but that responsibility does not appear to extend to cleaning street furniture in all our neighbourhoods. Let me give two examples. When my local authority, Merton, suggested that it would pay to have graffiti removed from the street furniture of Telewest, the cable television company, the company replied that if the authority dared to do so, it would take the authority to court. All the London boroughs that are part of South West Action Against Graffiti are trying to tackle Telewest and get an answer, but they cannot get an answer. 
 Similarly, Railtrack, when it was Railtrack, would not work with my local authority. The company had to be named and shamed in the local papers before there was any change of attitude. That is why I suggest in the new clauses that local authorities should have the power to remove graffiti when such companies will not. In the end, they do not have to live with the graffiti and a deterioration in their environment. 
 The views contained in the new clauses are not out of keeping with the Government's. Last year, DEFRA undertook a consultation on measures that could help to improve the environment. The document was entitled ''Living Places—Powers, Rights and Responsibilities''. Launching it, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life said that 
''we want to ensure that those who are responsible for ensuring that our public places are clean and safe have the powers that they need . . . We need everyone from businesses to community groups and individuals to share a common sense of pride and respect for our shared spaces.''
 One proposal in the document was to create a new duty on the owners of street furniture to keep their property clear of graffiti, and to extend the powers of local authorities to intervene and deal with graffiti.

Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clauses are directed at exactly the right people? Where there are small businesses in our communities, they have a direct interest in those communities. I have driven through my hon. Friend's constituency where someone may have suffered an attack of graffiti. When those businesses see graffiti, the next day it is often gone, because they understand that they have to deal with the problem quickly and respond to what people regard as a reduction in their quality of life. The new clauses deal with the very people who do not have that stake in our communities.

Siobhain McDonagh: That is precisely the point. The person who owns the local shop knows that they must keep it looking good in order to keep people using it. The companies to which I am referring do not see the correlation between keeping their street furniture clean and clear of graffiti, and the environment of local people.

Matthew Green: I was reassured at the start when the hon. Lady made it clear that the purpose of the new clauses was to deal with the former public utilities, rather than the individual householder who has something sprayed on their wall, but could she point out why such a law could not be used against a householder? Looking at the new clauses, I am a little confused. I know what she is trying to do; I simply seek reassurance on that.

Siobhain McDonagh: I had precisely that problem when I looked at the new clauses, but the Association of London Government helped me with them. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to new clause 9(2). I am reliably informed by the ALG's lawyers that that provision could relate only to statutory undertakers—those people who have a right to dig up roads. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot add any more than that. However, I have put on hon. Members' desks a copy of Votes and Proceedings, which includes my ten-minute Bill. It clearly states that it relates to statutory undertakers.
 Throughout our proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and others have suggested that we must ensure that any legislation we pass is clear, understandable and effective. I believe that the new clauses meet all those requirements. They clearly state that the local authority has the right to issue notices for the removal of graffiti. There is 14 days to comply with the notice, and if the company does not comply, the council can remove the graffiti and charge the company. It is a simple and sharp procedure, which I hope will shock companies into some activity.

Matthew Green: Provided that new clause 9(2) does what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) believes it does—I am no lawyer either, so perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that point—this is an excellent set of new clauses which deserves our support. If we get the reassurance we need, we will certainly support the amendments.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made an excellent contribution, and one point that she made deserves repetition. Why is the removal of graffiti important? All members of the Committee agree that removing graffiti, wherever it occurs, is not a trivial matter. Removal helps to reduce crime and the fear of crime; that is why it is important. For too long we have taken the view that graffiti does not really matter—it is okay because it is individual expression and, in some cases, brilliant art. We have almost turned a blind eye to it and the statutory undertakers almost see it as beneath them to worry about it, but if Parliament and society ignore the small things, we will find it difficult to tackle the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities.

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right about the removal of graffiti. Does he feel the same about bus shelters that are constantly being vandalised?

Vernon Coaker: That is a good point. Whether the graffiti is on bus shelters, telephone boxes, bridges or walls, if it is not removed, it undermines society's sense of standards. Whether we call our approach zero tolerance or the broken window theory, people who object to these new clauses will argue that it is too totalitarian and that we are infringing everyone's basic rights. In reality, by turning a blind eye, we create communities where the law-abiding majority find life difficult because we tolerate too much that is done by a minority, be that graffiti or some of the more serious things. We have to deal with the small things, because if we ignore them, we will not get some of the bigger things right.

Shona McIsaac: I was pleased to support the ten-minute Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, although I am sure that she was inundated with support for it.
 I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling that we must consider the environment. If people open their front door and see broken bottles and graffiti, that depresses them and they do not feel that it is worth keeping their own front garden tidy, and that can lead to a spiral of decline. However, if graffiti and litter are cleared away quickly, people take more pride in an area and it is less likely to be covered in graffiti again. 
 Their local environment being in a poor state permeates people's attitudes to public services—they lose faith in the public services and the police. It also breeds fear of crime, so that even though crime is decreasing, people do not believe that it is because of what they see when they open their front door. I hope that the Minister takes note of the strength of feeling on the issue, because the new clauses are simple and would be effective. I am sure that every local authority in the country would welcome such measures.

Tony McNulty: Last October or November, I had the great pleasure of launching the ''Living Places'' consultation document because I was the lead Minister responsible for it. I therefore agree with much of what underlies my hon. Friend's new clauses. I also fully concur with what my hon. Friends have said about the slow, gentle and initially low-level degradation of our local environment. Whether the problem is litter, broken bottles, general rubbish, syringes or graffiti, that cycle of degradation is important. Although some of my mean colleagues take the rise out of me, I have great pleasure in being the Minister for parks and green spaces and for the public realm and all that goes on in it. I have serious policy concerns about the spaces—green or otherwise—that make up much of our urban townscape. If those spaces are degraded, we are in difficulty.
 Some will call me a philistine because although I try to be hip and youthful and to see some artistic merit in some graffiti, I can see none. There is a place for street art. Recently, I was in Sutton high street, which is not a million miles away from my hon. Friend's constituency in Merton—in fact I went to her constituency afterward to help her in the launch of a successful warden scheme. In Sutton high street there is public art that looks like art; it is not scruffy graffiti that despoils the surface of our public realm, whether street furniture or otherwise. 
 I take account of all those elements, and I shall not bore the Committee with the many other things that we will be doing over the next few weeks, as a consequence of the ''Living Places'' consultation document. I share hon. Members' concern about those important issues. The problem is rather like a little thread hanging off someone's jacket: it is irrelevant and needs nothing much done about it, but if it is left, it grows longer and longer, and suddenly there is no jacket left because it has unravelled completely. 
 Cable boxes, telephone boxes, street lighting and other items of street furniture are too often magnets for graffiti, as my hon. Friend said. We are considering the matter in the body of the ''Living Places'' consultation. We need to consider how to strike a balance: graffiti is part of the degradation of smaller town centres and high streets, but shops standing empty because people have been priced out of an area or street are an equally powerful element. 
 I am no lawyer—I say that happily and thankfully—but I am not absolutely convinced that the definition of street furniture given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden as that which is noticeable and on the pavement will not catch small businesses, or that it will catch the once public, now private utilities that have loads of money. We need to look at the cost elements in more detail to ensure that the proposal does not have a disproportionate impact on some of the things that are captured by the definition in new clause 9. In addition, we must ensure that we do not impose an undue cost burden on local authorities, especially during the start-up period. 
 I am deeply sympathetic to all that my hon. Friend said. It goes to the core of what is outlined in ''Living Places'' and in the DEFRA addendum on rights and responsibilities.

Siobhain McDonagh: As a Minister with some responsibility for local government and as a former councillor, does my hon. Friend not agree that most London boroughs would willingly take on the extra start-up costs of having the powers in the new clauses? They recognise that people who live in their area regard removal of graffiti as an important service that is needed and wanted. My experience of talking to all sorts of local authorities is that they are desperate to have simple and easy powers to tackle these problems.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt what my hon. Friend says. We share the experience of having been councillors in inner London and in suburban areas. However, in the interests of simplicity and clarity, it should go through the due process of the law in terms of what the proposal catches and its impact on costs.
 I sympathise with the points made by hon. Friend and I undertake to reconsider the issues, but I ask her, please, to bear with me for now and let us look at the matter in far greater detail to discover whether the proposal in its current or another form can achieve the policy outputs that she wants. I am absolutely with her on the section of the new clause to which she referred, but I ask her to withdraw the motion.

Siobhain McDonagh: I, as a constituency MP, remain frustrated that the small things that anger my constituents take so long to resolve, and I am concerned that government often seems to be about stopping good ideas rather than running with them. I ask the Minister what is the time scale for the considerations, what deliberations will take place, and what will come back in the Bill on Report?

Tony McNulty: To take the questions in reverse order, I have no idea what will come back on Report because it depends on the due consideration that is given. The time scale is between now and Report,
 when a view will be forthcoming from the Government about what we can and cannot do with the new clauses. Bad law, however well intentioned, does not enhance the reputation of the role of this palace of varieties as a legislative assembly. These matters need to be considered. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has secured good legal advice about the drafting of the new clauses, but however good that advice was, it was not the advice that the Government received, which is why we need to take them away and think about them. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 57 - Commencement

Amendment made: No. 263, in 
clause 57, page 41, line 1, leave out '47' and insert '45'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
 Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 58 to 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes to Four o'clock.